Why we should link student loan forgiveness to national service

President Biden recently announced a plan to forgive an estimated $240 billion in student loans for some 25 million people. Last month, the Department of Defense announced our armed forces cannot meet their enlistment goals. These two events are not obviously connected, but should be. 

Consider the military’s situation. The services face their most serious challenge since the creation of the All Volunteer Force in 1973. While an occasional shortfall doesn’t presage a return of the draft, our inability to attract qualified personnel is a significant problem. But there is a more troubling undercurrent: The idea of service to the nation of almost any kind is declining.  

To sustain basic, minimal readiness, the Army needs about 68,000 new enlisted recruits annually; the Navy needs 33,000; the Air Force, 32,000; the Marine Corp, about 32,000; and the Coast Guard, 3,700. All of the services have had trouble hitting their targets, but the Coast Guard has had the most trouble meeting its recruiting goals.  

Those new personnel requirements total just under 168,000 young people annually. To put that goal into perspective, it is just under 4 percent of America’s 4.3 million 18-year-olds. Why is it so hard to attract a relatively modest portion of the target population? 

One reason is economic: COVID has created a hot labor market for entry-level workers. Another is that recruiters have had trouble getting real face-time — as opposed to FaceTime — with potential recruits. More disturbingly, however, a large and growing proportion of young people are simply unqualified to serve: Only 23 percent of 17- to 24-year-olds can meet basic standards without some sort of waiver.  

A high school diploma or GED long has been a minimal qualification for military service; yet 15 percent of this cohort will have neither. So, in June, and foreseeing a significant shortfall in recruits, the Army suspended its diploma requirement. But facing widespread criticism, the Army retreated from the policy after just one week.  

It gets worse. Another 31 percent of 17- to 24-year-olds can’t enlist because they are obese. An estimated 10 percent are ineligible because of criminal records, and an additional 15 percent won’t make the cut because of more-than-casual drug usage. In short, fully 71 percent of the age cohort could not serve even if they wanted to. 

So, the military has to find 168,000 young people interested and able to serve from the remaining 1.2 million 18-year-olds. That is fully 14 percent of the age cohort — and the military has to do it year after year to replace people retiring and completing their enlistment. 

Many conservative wags blame the shortfall on the military’s woke marketing messages. The Navy, for example, released a video during Pride Month explaining to sailors how to create a “safe space” by using proper gender pronouns. And a recent Army commercial featured a young woman who proudly spoke of how her two moms encouraged her to serve her country. 

Presumably, the marketing professionals the services employ understand their target audiences and are able to accurately measure the effectiveness of such ad campaigns. If an ad isn’t working, no marketer is going to waste money continuing to run it. 

Unfortunately, there is a more serious problem: The belief among young people that they have any obligation to serve the nation is eroding. They no longer care. 

For more than 20 years, I have been writing about the potential benefits of a mandatory program of national service — benefits to the nation and to the individual. I believe a program of mandatory national service can forge common experiences, develop important work habits, and expose participants to people very different from themselves; it is diversity in action.  

Such a program would incorporate not just military service — which would remain voluntary — but also real programs that meet real needs that we all could value. It could include, for example, environmental conservation work, pre-K assistance in schools, and senior citizen companionship. 

Over the years, when I have asked people whether they would support such a program, the answer was invariably, “It depends on the specifics.” So, beginning several years ago, I hired a reputable polling firm to gauge receptivity to the idea. They asked respondents if they would support a program structured as follows: 

“All citizens and permanent residents (Green Card holders) will be required to participate in an 18-month National Service program. Service can be started anytime between an individual’s 18th birthday and their 22nd birthday. Service shall include healthcare assistance, infrastructure/environmental repair, early childhood education programs, eldercare assistance, and military service. (Participation in the military option shall be voluntary.) National service participants shall receive free communal room, board, and a minimal subsistence allowance. Participants shall receive $10,000 upon successful completion of their service. People who fail to successfully complete their National Service obligation shall not be eligible for any federal student loan or mortgage guarantee program.” 

Last month, I again asked the polling company to conduct the survey. The results could not have been more different — or discouraging.  

Two years ago, 80 percent of 18- to 22-year-olds supported the proposition. This year, the number had fallen to 34 percent. Similarly, in 2020, 88 percent of adults supported mandatory service; today, it’s 38 percent. 

Why the change? Pandemic lockdowns, perhaps. An economy in distress. The horrific images coming out of Ukraine — which are very different from the high-tech antiseptic promises of the military’s commercials. Perhaps it’s the notion that people are owed government compensation. Or maybe it is our splintering into tribal-like factions, each of which values an often different and mutually exclusive “common good.” 

Fortunately, the president’s recent plan to forgive student loans gives us an opportunity to reconsider the idea of national service through a fresh lens. As the debate over whether we should forgive billions of dollars in student loans intensifies — and seems to cross traditional party lines — perhaps it is time to broaden the conversation. We should be asking whether we, as individuals, have an obligation to our society, what form that obligation might take, and what it is worth financially.  

For more than 75 years, the federal government has offered financial aid to members of the armed forces for their service: the GI Bill. This, of course, raises the question: Can we — should we — link tuition relief with some sort of national service besides the military?  

The GI Bill helped 8 million World War II veterans attend universities, doubling the number of Americans who earned college degrees. Another 10 million Korean War and Vietnam veterans received education benefits, and the current iteration of the law has helped nearly 1 million with aid totaling $12 billion. People can take advantage of generous tuition assistance while they are serving — to help them advance in their careers — and when they get out. It is a system that works and is equitable. 

Loan forgiveness in exchange for national service, rather than just for often self-indulgent personal college choices, makes for a more compelling national discussion. 

Two things are clear: What we have seen in Ukraine demonstrates that the world is a dangerous place. And a strong, capable military is essential to thwarting aggression and preserving peace. I believe mandatory national service across all fields would broaden the pool of young people who would voluntarily choose a military option. But if we can’t sustain an All Volunteer Force, we had better deal with the alternative of a draft — before it is too late. 

Steve Cohen is an attorney at Pollock Cohen, and a former member of the board of directors of the United States Naval Institute.